configure_meter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the acquisition is untouched and no output is driven, that the device may snap values so the read-back 'applied' value should be trusted, and that rejected writes come back as errors. These are non-obvious behaviors that materially affect how an agent should use and interpret the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every paragraph earns its place: it maps cleanly to parameter groups and dependency rules. The opening sentence states the core purpose, and later paragraphs are front-loaded with the parameter name before explaining semantics. The length is justified by the tool's conditional behavior across two device kinds.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a configuration tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides complete context: it explains all parameter semantics, the counter/DVM distinction, parameter dependencies, error behavior, ordering of clear_totalize, and the meaning of the read-back value. An agent has enough information to construct valid calls and interpret responses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters, and it does. It defines kind values, mode values per kind, source constraints per kind, digits and totalize_enabled coupling to mode, clear_totalize timing, and the requirement to specify at least one item. Every parameter in the schema gets meaningful semantic explanation beyond its raw name and type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure the frequency counter or the digital voltmeter.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from other configure_* siblings by defining its scope as the meter display reading only, and even names get_meter_value as the complementary read operation. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is for and what it is not for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus get_meter_value: configure here, read there. It also gives strong usage context, such as 'Omitted items are left unchanged,' 'Specify at least one item to change,' and 'set the mode in the same call as the parameters that depend on it.' This is actionable guidance for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.